Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Sator Square Finn_s Translation

Sator Square Finn_s Translation

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by Dew Nada
dewnada, sator square
dewnada, sator square

More info:

Published by: Dew Nada on Aug 27, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/23/2013

pdf

text

original

 
The Sator Square
Originated from ancient folk tradition, the enigmatic, comprehensible-incomprehensible formula sator arepotenet opera rotas has proven a tenacious vitality throughout the centuries. The properties, to which it owes itsimportance, become apparent, when one arranges the five five-letter words, so that they merge into a square.
SATORAREPOTENETOPERAROTAS
Like a shielded adornment, or more precise almost like a shield itself, the words are standing here, held tightand secured by the fact, that they result in the same sentence, when viewed from the 4 corners in bothhorizontal and vertical way, and in four of eight cases even result in the same sequence of words.Furthermore interlocked and decorated through the cross framed by the holy letters A & O , as which the doubleTENET presents itself in the middle of the square block. It is understandable, that such a formation was highlyvalued at all times, when one believed in the secret power of letters and words, and that it, in its untouchableunity, could be seen as a magic potion, through which all evil was kept away.But where, as in science, the belief in the spellbinding power of words is missing, the life, that resides within theformula, manifests itself, in so far, that it awakens the restlessness of an initially clueless questioning, ineveryone who approaches it.The numerous works, that have been written about it in recent years, show, how much this disquiet is being feltespecially during these times.Some lucky finds have occurred, in just these years. In the West as in the East of the Roman Empire, inPompeii and in the place Dura (=Europos) on the Euphrates, the formula has appeared in multiple renditions.Not only has the geographical distribution been illuminated through this, but it results also in new time limits:The Inscriptions of Dura, where the Roman occupation only lasted until the year 256, should date back to theearly third century, the inscriptions of Pompeii, which was buried under the Ashes of Vesuvius in the Year 79,even seem to date back to the middle of the first century of the Christian era. No less important is, however, thatin all these inscriptions, the words are recorded in a different sequence, than it was customary during latertimes:R O T A SO P E R AT E N E TA R E P OS A T O RSince such a sequence beginning with ROTAS instead of SATOR, also can be encountered on an inscriptionfrom the fourth century, that has been found earlier in England - it has hitherto been the oldest knownrepresentation of the formula - , it is quite possible, that such an unusual, in its structure seemingly "unlatin",version was quite common in antiquity.When trying to interpret the formula, one may naturally only consider the early antique Version. One can claimeven less, that the words make proper sense, just as they present themselves to the impartial eye, with thisearly version, than with the late- or post-antique restructuring, where at least the sequence of Subject,Predicate and Object doesn't stir up concerns, but the strange word AREPO remains as questionable as ever.Although one was convinced to be able to handle the AREPO with some certainty.If one didn't just explain it as a proper name, one saw it e.g. as a Celtic word, belonging to the testifiedarepennis, a Gallic soil measurement, and accordingly either referred to land and soil or the plow, or oneunderstood it - to mention one of the newer interpretations - as an otherwise unrecorded Latin noun, that wouldhave been badly transformed from the word arripere. The formula should then say:"The Sower holds tight the wheels with diligence on the plow field ( or on the plow) "or with reference to a vision of Ezekiel :
 
"The wheels and their work holds the Gatherer, the Sower."Anyone feeling unsatisfied with such results of a word-to-word interpretation and especially perceiving theunwelcome AREPO as too bothersome, had to try, to operate in a more artistic way.So one tried, distrusting the obvious wording of the square, to read the text in a "Roesselsprung" [type ofcrossword puzzle in which certain individual letters make up a phrase or saying] manner, or attempted toreconstruct the "real" text (which one believed to be hidden in the square), by freely rearranging the five-by-fiveletters.Despite some, that were completely missing the target, one or another conclusion has been reached, that didn'tat least seem entirely inappropriate, such as the request, that has been welcomed as the right solution bymany:oro te, pater, oro te, pater, sanas. But if one examined the stock of letters individually, the surprising factshowed, that from the twenty-five given letters, as long as they were arranged skillfully enough, a doublePATER NOSTER can be shaped. For this the letters are to be put together as follows:
AP
AT
E
R
A
PATERNOSTER
O
O
S
T
E
RO
or better:
PA
A T
O
E
R
PATERNOSTER
O
S
A
T
OERIt can be understood, that the PATER NOSTER-interpretation, compelling in its simplicity, became popularquickly.But also objections have been made, and it is the question whether they can be refuted. It seems to us, theyare not invincible.It has been thought, that the transformation of the square into the PATER NOSTER-cross is just as arbitrary asthe process, to reach a more or less meaningful text, by means of freely rearranging the letters. With thisobjection it has gone unnoticed , how exactly the cross in its structure corresponds to the square. The letters,which are included in each of the two arms of the cross (increased around the A & O belonging to them) are thesame, as occur in each of the two halves of the square (until the pivotal point of the N standing in the middle). Incontrast, the other texts that have been extracted from the square, are only connected to it by the fact that thestock of letters is the same in its entirety, without there being any corresponding order. This difference is notinsignificant and can not be accidental. One may explain the relationship between the cross and the squarewith good reason through real genealogy and may claim, that the square has emerged from the cross throughplanned reorganization. Like a memory of the original cross shape, the cross, formed by the double TENET
 
including its framing by the double A & O, still acts inside the square.The next question is whether the words formed with the letters of the cross inside the square make reasonablesense in context. If one reads them simply from top to bottom, one will not find a reasonable meaning. Whatshould be the meaning of a sower who holds some wheels? One has been of the opinion, to be able to explainthe dark words as a reference to a vision of Ezekiel. As is well known, Ezekiel speaks of Jahwe's wagon with itswondrous wheels and of the fiery coals, which are being removed from the spaces between the wheels andspread over sinful Jerusalem to destroy all those who have not previously been marked with the sign of piety.In this text one will find the "rotae" and "opera" in immediate proximity next to each other, and also the T-sign,which appears four times in a prominent place inside the square, can be found. But the three other words of thesquare are missing, and there is nothing, which would correspond to their meaning. Under suchcircumstances, one has to take the correspondence of the two words "rotae" and "opera" as coincidence.In contrast, the square can be satisfactorily explained, if one looks in a zigzag way from the upper right as wellas from the bottom left corner towards the middle line. Then we get the saying "sator opera tenet" twice, in sucha way that both sentences overlap in the TENET.Since, as we have seen, each of the two halves of the square has received the letters of one of the two crossbars including the associated A & O, such a reading beginning at two opposite corners is not unfounded.Similarly, the zigzag way itself may prove meaningful. Here, the old custom of writing in a "plow-way" (boustrophedon) has been applied, which was never fully revealed in the ancient world. The followingpicture of an alphabet apparently perceived as a "power holder" may illustrate, how one has used this style ofwriting even in later times (especially there, where power effects were desired) and how one, in order toincrease the secret, occasionally used to start with a sinistogyrate line (going from right to left). :But full warranty, that for the ROTAS-square the Zigzag reading is the correct one, is the fact that the saying"sator opera tenet" gained through this style of reading fits better to the Pater Noster of the cross. Also becausethe word SATOR doesn't just correspond to the word PATER in writing and sound, but equally well in meaning.It refers here apparently to the Creator, and the sentence as a whole is an expression of the Creator sustaininghis own creation. This is a transformation or, if you will say, an encryption of the PATER NOSTER depicted inthe cross, that is not unfaithful to the Spirit of the original.Of course one has been of the opinion that all assumptions of a Relationship between the Sator formula andthe Pater Noster-cross have become obsolete, since the two Rotas-squares of Pompeii were revealed. Ifindeed the Rotas-square emerged from the Pater Noster-cross, so can it, one might think, as well as the crossitself only be understood as a work of Christians, those Christians, who were already accustomed to use theLatin language in writing. Contrary to such a view is, however that the Pompeian squares, if they were mountedbefore the disaster of the year 79, had to date back to the middle of the first century and thus belong to a time,in which an independent Latin Christianity had not yet emerged.To escape the difficulties there are only two ways: Either to recognize the squares as not Christian or toconsider them dating from a later time. To accomplish the shift in time, one has worked with the assumption thatthe squares have only been mounted after the destruction of Pompeii by treasure seekers, that had enteredinto the buried city. This assumption allows for the squares to be set as late, as the general development ofChristianity seems to demand. But this assumption is too conditional to be credible, and it refutes itself in thatfor two inscriptions at various places in the city the same exceptional conditions must be valid. If therefore thedifficulties can not be overcome through this daring explanation, one is forced to acknowledge that theseinscriptions are not an Expression of Christianity. This means, however, that the Rotas-squares as such are notChristian by origin.One was, as mentioned, prepared to reveal (through the Christian origin of the square) its origin from thePATER NOSTER cross as well. But it seems that such a brusque procedure is not necessary.For there is an explanation that allows simultaneously for the early occurrence of the square as well as itsrelationship to the cross. It is only necessary, to deny Christianity the square as well as the PATER NOSTER-cross. But if this cross is not Christian, it can only be Jewish. To regard it as such is not prevented by anything.The sign of the cross itself creates no concern, because it is the ancient equilateral cross, that unlike thegallows cross distinctive for the Christian Community, can be found among all peoples.It may seem bolder, to claim the (for Christianity so important) words Pater Noster for Judaism. But it issufficiently established, that the god call in the new prayer, which Jesus taught his disciples, is inherited from

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->